The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in a recent report that it expects 30,000 commercial and government drones to be flying over the U.S. airspace within 20 years. The drones will be cheap, will be able to stay aloft continuously, and can even be as small as an insect (so-called "nano-drones"). All of that makes the perfect vehicle for something many great writers and philosophers have long feared -- ubiquitous, uninterrupted government surveillance.

While it sounds like a paranoid flight of fantasy, that's precisely the issue that was being discussed in last week's report. It comments, "In the near future, law enforcement organizations might seek to outfit drones with facial recognition or soft biometric recognition, which can recognize and track individuals based on attributes such as height, age, gender and skin color."

Reaper drones are currently being used over U.S. airspace. [Image Source: The Real Revo]

Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) is among the major defense contractors field testing a model which could be used to ubiquitously spy on citizens of both America and foreign nations -- a flyer named "Stalker". Stalker drones get a charge from ground-based lasers, allowing them to continuously stay aloft, surveying individuals 24-7 in an urban landscape. Solar panels have also been explored as a way of keeping drones aloft.

Some companies are examining the possibility of deploying armed drones (war drones) over U.S. soil to provide intelligence and law enforcement agencies a weapon in the sky to use against "criminals".

III. Warrantless Monitoring?

A key question is whether such spying would be legal without warrant, an allowance that could be tantamout to leaving the door open to abuse.

Based on current U.S. court precedent, the report hypothesizes that courts would deem nano-drone visual or heat-image surveillance of U.S. citizens inside their homes to be illegal. However, it is less clear whether drones would be disallowed to stalk Americans in their backyards, swimming pools, deck, or porch. And intelligence agencies would likely be able to freely spy on people in public locations.

But the researchers also note that the drones' ability to stay in the air indefinitely or for extended periods of time (or even days), could sway courts to deem warrantless drone monitoring of Americans to be a Fourth Amendment violation. Comments the report:
This capability may sway a court’s determination of whether certain types of warrant-less drone surveillance are compatible with the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The important phrasing there is "unreasonable searches", which many would argue would include continuous drone surveillance.

III. Bills on the Table, Question of Citizens Shooting Down Drones Looms

The good news is that there are several proposals floating around Congress to block using drones to spy on Americans without warrant. The bad news is that past efforts to limit warrantless drone use have been largely struck down, and that the current efforts do not necessarily ban all kinds of warrantless use.

According to the summary by The Hill, three measures are currently on the table, all penned by Republicans in Congress.

One of the measures is very specific, seeking to narrow the scope of a specific agency's use of drone monitoring.

The other two bills would be more ubiquitous. The Preserving American Privacy Act would strictly limit surveillance of U.S. citizens by drones to only be allowed with warrant in the investigation of felonies. That bill is written by Rep. Ted Poe's (R-Texas). A second bill by Rep. Austin Scott (R-Georgia) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), dubbed the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, would require police departments to obtain a warrant, in most cases, before using drones. The Sen. Paul version is stricter, in that it contains an extra provision to prevent warrantless evidence from being used against Americans in a court of law.

Several bills are looking to restrict police use of drones. [Image Source: Reuters]

It is unclear if any of these measures will pass.

One aspect of the measure not discussed by the report is what the legal rammifications would be of a legally armed U.S. citizens shooting down or hacking a drone that was spying on them or a nearby neighbor. As unlikely as that scenario sounds, it could happen if use soars.

It can be safely presumed that the responsible agency would try to charge the citizen for destroying federal property, obstruction of justice, or other similar charges. The real question is what the courts would make of such a case.

Well I understand "sniper" rifles are around, I myself own an R700 which is the base action for the M24/M40 sniper rifles used by the Army and Marines. The thing is, its already extremely difficult to hit a land based stationary target a mile away, MOA plays into but other things play into it like wind drift, humidity, temp, even the Coriolis Effect and except for the latter, all are ever changing. However the people below talking about hobby rocketry have a better chance.

The legal side of things though is no problem, as far as I know the only state to infringe on our rights so deeply as to ban certain "sniper" rifles is California, which banned the .50. And automatics are still legal by the way. look up NFA, I believe the cut off date was 1986, though I could be wrong, all thats required is a mountain of paperwork, a pile of cash and you can own a automatic rifle. Provided your not in select few states.

My thoughts exactly. I have gotten used to making adjustments on the X&Y planes - I wouldn't even have a clue how to factor wind currents and accurate distances shooting into the Z plane. Hell, you would need to use tracers just to adjust your aim and even then the depth of field would play all kinds of tricks on you.

There is a reason that only 1 in a 1000 AAA shells in WW2 ever hit anything. And those could be set to burst at a specific altitude.

Well too be fair, most AA fire was at night when they couldn't really see the planes they were shooting at. So in many instances they were just blind firing into the air hoping to hit one of the planes they could hear but not always see. They also had nothing to accurately gauge the altitude of the plane.